Kuiper Belt Binary Pairs: Existence Confirmed?

[wolram]

i remember a referance to, binary pairs in the kuiper belt,
i can not remember if a mass for the objects was given
or orbital distance, my memory may be fading or wrong,
can someone comfirm or dispute the existence of these
objects?

 

[Nereid]

This might be a good place to start:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2002/04/

Note that there's a much more recent HST-based result estimating the size distribution (and outer extent) of EKB objects than the last link in the "Related Links" page.

 

[wolram]

thanks NEREID.

1998WW31 is an interesting duo, its a shame observation
time is so limited, do you or anyone have an insight
as to how much it costs for say an hours observation
time?

 

[Nereid]

Expensive!

Originally posted by wolram
thanks NEREID.

1998WW31 is an interesting duo, its a shame observation
time is so limited, do you or anyone have an insight
as to how much it costs for say an hours observation
time?

It's an interesting question. Not very useful, as observing time isn't up for auction, except in the currency of proposal-quality.

A crude OOM: (cost of constructing and launching the HST + cost of Hubble repair and servicing Shuttle missions) / (total expected years of operation * duty cycle). That'd be a kinda capex answer; the opex answer would be simply the operating budget of the STScI (OOM, and a lower limit to be sure).

 

[wolram]

from what little i have gleened, it seems observation
time is getting harder and harder to get, is this due
to funding or compeeting projects or other reason?

 

[Nereid]

Pure guess

Originally posted by wolram
from what little i have gleened, it seems observation time is getting harder and harder to get, is this due to funding or compeeting projects or other reason?

I'm not sure that it is getting any harder. However, if it is, we can round up the usual suspects: demand continues to grow faster than supply (e.g. more astronomy - and physics? - PhDs than new observing time; average observing time requested per proposal is rising; available obseratory time actually declining (not likely)); inefficiency (unlikely); ...

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by wolram
from what little i have gleened, it seems observation
time is getting harder and harder to get, is this due
to funding or compeeting projects or other reason?

If you are talking about observation time on the HST, I think the answer may be because the HST's total time is decreasing; it is scheduled for decommissioning soon.

 

[wolram]

your replies seem totaly negative if there has been a time
for observation then this is it, theory is theory but
observation is truth ,if money or any other obstacle gets
in the way of observation then it can only be a hinderance
to our understanding, i just can not understand why the
most powerful nation on Earth can spend billions of $ on
stealth aircraft and neglect our real futuer.

 

[Nereid]

Make your views known!

Originally posted by LURCH
If you are talking about observation time on the HST, I think the answer may be because the HST's total time is decreasing; it is scheduled for decommissioning soon.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that (see the link below). The good news is that there appears to be a genuine desire to a) determine the perceived value of keeping the HST going, b) finding creative ways to satisfy the many desires within the rather tight constraints (need for Shuttle to service Hubble if it's life is to be extended, as just one example), and c) keep everyone informed of the thinking and decision making. Very admirable.

http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1117_1.asp

 

[Nereid]

But what to do about it?

Originally posted by wolram
your replies seem totaly negative if there has been a time for observation then this is it, theory is theory but observation is truth ,if money or any other obstacle gets in the way of observation then it can only be a hinderance to our understanding, i just can not understand why the most powerful nation on Earth can spend billions of $ on stealth aircraft and neglect our real futuer.

There'll be long queues of PF members lining up to endorse that sentiment!

One of my favourite counter-examples (like your stealth aircraft example) is $x millions going into a 'just say no' campaign, and an apparently sincere belief that this is actually a cost-effective way to deal with AIDS. What's profoundly depressing is that many of those who support this campaign are well-informed, intelligent, even have the data (and statistical tools, and competence to use them and understand the results) to assess the relative impacts of various possible anti-AIDS campaigns, yet they *still* support 'just say no'!